lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [May]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [RFC 2/2] virtio_balloon: auto-ballooning support
    On 05/13/2013 11:16 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:

    > However, there's a big question mark: host specifies
    > inflate, guest says deflate, who wins?

    If we're dealing with a NUMA guest, they could both win :)

    The host could see reduced memory use of the guest in one
    place, while the guest could see increased memory availability
    in another place...

    I also suspect that having some "churn" could help sort out
    exactly what the working set is.

    > At some point Google sent patches that gave guest
    > complete control over the balloon.
    > This has the advantage that management isn't involved.

    I believe the Google patches still included some way for the
    host to initiate balloon inflation on the guest side, because
    the guest internal state alone is not enough to see when the
    host is under memory pressure.

    I discussed the project with the Google developers in question
    a little over a year ago, but I do not remember whether their
    pressure notification went through qemu, or directly from the
    host kernel to the guest kernel...

    > And at some level it seems to make sense: why set
    > an upper limit on size of the balloon?
    > The bigger it is, the better.

    Response time.

    If too much of a guest's memory has been removed, it can take
    too long for the guest to react to user requests, be it over
    the web or ssh or something else...

    --
    All rights reversed


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2013-05-13 19:21    [W:3.801 / U:0.096 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site